FLops Village Idiots - in house

[chief9404]

OMG. Special Ed is involved. Too funny. Who is funding this disaster?

 

[shanes123]

Ricci and his stooges

 

[Rupert.]

Wow! You guys don't know s*%t. Cannot believe that someone would bad mouth Shawn. Totally classless. That dude is aces!! Have a whole new disrespect for this website. Unreal.

Agreed, there is not a better person out there.

 

[shanes123]

Well since he's looking at getting moved out of X and losing check airmen pay I'm sure he's in survival mode..and of course it's the unions fault cause of the contract they negotiated..never the company's fault for the contract they negotiated

 

[Rupert.]

Well since he's looking at getting moved out of X and losing check airmen pay I'm sure he's in survival mode..and of course it's the unions fault cause of the contract they negotiated..never the company's fault for the contract they negotiated

Did the company offer to pay protect him? YES
Did the union stop the company from pay protecting him? YES

 

[BlueNose]

Did the company offer to pay protect him? YES
Did the union stop the company from pay protecting him? YES

The union leadership insisted on those pay cuts, starting back with the Hawker SICs and continuing on to displaced PICs from the Hawker and X. Company offered to pay freeze them like they had always done in cases like these.

I think this did more than anything management could have dreamed up to build support for an in-house. Selfish and short-sighted - you never take money out of your members' pockets.

 

[GooseHZ]

If the company would grow flops instead of shrinking/retire the Hawkers there would never been a surplus. The company tried to violate the CBA by offering a pay freeze. They knew the union couldn't allow that. The company agreed to the language in the CBA governing surplus pilots.....just another attempt to make the union look bad. Contracts are seniority based. Even one negotiated by a In house Union. With out a strong Union surplused pilots = furloughed or fired pilots.....The underfunded in house union could not afford to take the company to court after they violated the CBA. Is that what you want?

 

[slowtation capt]

Never once did I see any of these guys step up and try to take any form of leadership role within the Union. And now they want to kick the IBT to the curb and run things on their own. If they couldn't or wouldn't step up with a big national organization behind them, how can I or how should I trust and believe that they would even stand up to the company. Oh that's right, they are the golden children, the one's that have always been taken care of by the company, and have bought into every promise that Kenn and Joe have made to them. So they won't exactly stand up, they will have a buddy/buddy talk, and walk out of their offices with sh@t coming out of their as*es, because they just got fu*ked so har*, they won't sh*t right for a week.

 

[Ludicrous Speed]

"and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

The President swears he'll defend the Constitution. It, in turn, guarantees & protects our rights. A union has to protect & defend the contract. Our work rules & pay are only guaranteed if we defend the contract. Allow one part to be breached & quickly, the guarantees become more a guideline. Or to put it in Options terms: "gray areas."

This is why a union fights battles that sometimes may appear as unpopular. Strictly speaking, they're only defending (as they're required to do) the very contract you voted in.

I can't comment on whether the contract is amendable during its term or whether an LOA (Letter of Agreement) serves legally as an amendment. Regardless: at any time, the company could write an LOA guaranteeing provisions for all union members. They could do it pretty fast too, as Uncle Kenn demonstrated last month with his Citation Air tomfoolery/chicanery/smoke screen.

The Constitution has been amended to ensure no one is discriminated against because of race, religion, etc. The contract also can not discriminate against any of its members, including those ignoramuses like Rupert who thinks one person is more equal than the others or Bluenose, who thinks the union is taking money out of its members pockets. This is not to say that SM isn't an outstanding pilot, a fair CA, or a good guy to be stuck with for 8 days. 'Cause he is. He deserves pay protection. But while we're at it, so do hundreds of other FO pilots.

 

[BlueNose]

"and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

The President swears he'll defend the Constitution. It, in turn, guarantees & protects our rights. A union has to protect & defend the contract. Our work rules & pay are only guaranteed if we defend the contract. Allow one part to be breached & quickly, the guarantees become more a guideline. Or to put it in Options terms: "gray areas."

This is why a union fights battles that sometimes may appear as unpopular. Strictly speaking, they're only defending (as they're required to do) the very contract you voted in.

I can't comment on whether the contract is amendable during its term or whether an LOA (Letter of Agreement) serves legally as an amendment. Regardless: at any time, the company could write an LOA guaranteeing provisions for all union members. They could do it pretty fast too, as Uncle Kenn demonstrated last month with his Citation Air tomfoolery/chicanery/smoke screen.

The Constitution has been amended to ensure no one is discriminated against because of race, religion, etc. The contract also can not discriminate against any of its members, including those ignoramuses like Rupert who thinks one person is more equal than the others or Bluenose, who thinks the union is taking money out of its members pockets. This is not to say that SM isn't an outstanding pilot, a fair CA, or a good guy to be stuck with for 8 days. 'Cause he is. He deserves pay protection. But while we're at it, so do hundreds of other FO pilots.

Are you saying an LOA couldn't have been written allowing displaced pilots to keep current pay, just as was done for the furlough returnees? Or that the company refused to do so? Are you telling us that IBT leadership fought to protect their members' pay in this case?

Or was it that the top 2 union officials, being small cabin capts, didn't think it was fair that they might get a right seater making more than them? Even though that person had been displaced through no fault of his/her own? Isn't that what Capt Praetorian said on a group call?

I didn't say an in-house effort is the way to go. I said this was a selfish and short-sighted decision by the IBT leaders. Much like senior management's antics during the Schreenga days had the effect of promoting a union, I think this episode pi$$ed off enough displaced capts to make a decert vote much more likely. People tend to get offended when you take food off their family's table.